Author |
Topic: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games (Read 522258 times) |
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender: 
Posts: 804
|
 |
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #675 on: Sep 1st, 2011, 10:57am » |
|
on Sep 1st, 2011, 10:45am, Sconibulus wrote:| If you have two doubles sitting on, let's say c2 and e2 with a singleton trapped on d1 whenever a rescue is threatened by a double the piece can split to b1, d3, or f1. A treble could go to rescue, thinking to penetrate the pyramid then split, I think that a portion of it could always remain trapped. |
|
Ah, every solution has a problem. This isn't a trivial one either. If Pyryx goes down the drain I'd have you to thank and myself to blame  .
You may be right, let me sleep on it. Suggestions are welcome, but it's easy come easy go. Anything less than simple (in particular rules that "wear their intent on their sleeves") isn't worth it.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 1st, 2011, 10:59am by christianF » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #676 on: Sep 1st, 2011, 12:26pm » |
|
on Sep 1st, 2011, 10:45am, Sconibulus wrote:| If you have two doubles sitting on, let's say c2 and e2 with a singleton trapped on d1 whenever a rescue is threatened by a double the piece can split to b1, d3, or f1. A treble could go to rescue, thinking to penetrate the pyramid then split, I think that a portion of it could always remain trapped. |
|
Sleeping on it takes too long, but a walk with the dogs made me reconsider your example.
Not only the 'blocker' gets extra flexibility by the option to split stacks, the 'liberator' also profits. Consider, in your example, the diagonals intersecting at D2. A single on both of them, or two singles on either, or a double on either, would all allow the liberator to get a double on D2 in two moves. Move it to D1 and escape with a triple seems a good plan. Meanwhile the blocker is unlikely to be constructive in his own right, being occupied with blocking and all.
The only thing I hate to lose is the commitment that was implied in building a 3-plus stack in the version without the split option. Of course the rule could be that a 3-plus stack, apart from being the final destination, is out of the game, but that would in the current rules mean an extra rule. As it is the game keeps its basic simplicity, and there's a strong incentive to build where you're high already, so if it's no absulute commitment, it's at least a strong declaration of intent.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 1st, 2011, 12:27pm by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #677 on: Sep 7th, 2011, 9:22am » |
|
The initial position: the 'Marquisian Method'
The Marquisian Method to balance a game is named after a 19th century French Draughts player who made money by offering opponents a similar choice in a particularly nasty endgame of which he knew every nook and cranny, and betting on the outcome.
The main characteristic of the method is that it allows the player who makes the initial position, to present an in-deep studied piece of homework. It is therefore not a true balancing method, yet it takes that form in games between less experienced players.
In the case of more experienced players, the fun for Player Two is to figure out the nasty tricks his opponent has woven into the position, and try to let him fall into his own traps.
Games employing the Marquisian Method are Pylyx, InSight and the twin games Swish & Squeeze.
There was some discussion about Pylyx's opening protocol at rga, in particular: did it have a name?
Not that I know of, so I've coined it the "Marquisian Method", and added this short explanation to the rules of the games mentioned.
Concerning Pylyx, I felt that a player bend on it, and given a chance, might try to wall in a single on the edge completely. Not that it would be in the game's spirit, nor that it would be easy, but if it can happen it will happen, so I've solved the problem by adding a 'sidebar' of ten squares to each edge, that are excluded from the initial set-up, but included in the playing area.
In the case of "the position of the Marquis", the main character presented a position of which he knew the truth. If he landed on the 'good side' he would have a win, while on the losing side, he would trust his opponent to fall for one of the many traps the position harbored.
In the games employing the method, "the truth" will not be known to either player. That's the basis of the method's effectiveness as a balancing mechanism.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 7th, 2011, 9:49am by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #678 on: Sep 8th, 2011, 7:14pm » |
|
on Sep 7th, 2011, 9:22am, christianF wrote:
In the games employing the method, "the truth" will not be known to either player. That's the basis of the method's effectiveness as a balancing mechanism. |
|
This sounds like the refuse given to hogs. No apples, therefore oranges. How does "hidden truth", whatever that even means, imply any sort of balance?
Neither player having a clue when to exercise his option is a recipe for poor clarity, not balance - if such a thing could even exist in an abstract game independent of board size, which it couldn't.
Consider for comparison Hex with pie. For a given skill level, including understanding pie and having knowledge of highly equitable starting moves, second turn advantage will converge to (effectively) zero with increasing board size. Nothing hidden yet perfectly balanced. Now contrast your game. Something hidden and no evidence of balance.
It would be well within the realm of the ordinary for a game to have a hidden yet powerful turn order advantage. You've "discovered" some sort of nonsensical correlation between hidden things and balance.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #679 on: Sep 9th, 2011, 12:08pm » |
|
Symple and Sygo have been listed at BGG, courtesy if Benedikt Rosenau.
on Sep 8th, 2011, 7:14pm, MarkSteere wrote:
This sounds like the refuse given to hogs. No apples, therefore oranges. How does "hidden truth", whatever that even means, imply any sort of balance? |
|
As usual when it comes to simple facts, you're clueless.
Zermelo's theorem states that every abstract two-player perfect-information zero-sum game is completely determined. What does that mean? It means that the truth - in terms of win/lose or draw - for every legal position (including an initial position) is an estabished fact. We may not know it, but nothing we can do will change the result if we ever were to actually find it.
That's why Schaeffer et al could announce "Checkers is a draw".
Theoretically the truth of a position can be arrived at via a simple algorithm (but "infinitely lenghty" and therefore useless in all but the simplest games). First draw the entire game tree:
This one is of MiniMancala, a game small enough to actually finish the algorithm. Small enough too, to add the rules here:
The board consists of two rows of two 'pits'. There are two players, north and south. Each player controls the two pits on his side. In the initial position each pit contains two beads.
Any player starts. Players move - and must move - in turn. On his turn a player selects one of his own pits, takes out all beads, and distributes them one by one in a counter-clockwise direction over the other three pits. If the pit contains more than three beads, the fourth (seventh) falls in the same pit as the first.
If a player on his turn finds both his pits empty, he has lost.
You see the initial position at the top. 'Moves' exit left and right and enter at the top of the resulting position.
After you've finished you find all leaves, position from which no move exits. There are two leaves in this tree: these you know the 'truth' of.
From there you start coloring backwards: winning move green, losing move red, draw move blue:
The pulsating loop is the draw cycle. Now you know the truth of every position, and all strategy, and all tactics, are reduced to:
* If you see a green exit, choose green
* If you see no green exit, choose blue
* If you see no blue exit either, you're screwed.
So that's the truth I'm talking about.
But I use 'truth' also in a less formal matter, so don't get confused 
on Sep 8th, 2011, 7:14pm, MarkSteere wrote:Neither player having a clue when to exercise his option is a recipe for poor clarity, not balance.
...
It would be well within the realm of the ordinary for a game to have a hidden yet powerful turn order advantage. You've "discovered" some sort of nonsensical correlation between hidden things and balance. |
|
Again, when it comes to simple facts, you're clueless.
Did you really consider what I wrote? If so you'd have discovered that of the three games I mention, one actually doen't employ it. Others may have noticed it (but were too polite to mention it, I presume) but InSight uses an extended pie, not the 'Marquis'.
The difference is that in InSight, the side to move in any initial position is Black. So the second player chooses to be Black, and move, or to be White.
That being said, Pylyx and the Swish/Squeeze indeed employ the Marquisian Method. It's not all that different, and we may even consider an extended pie for both, because the Marquis is less easily implemented in an applet.
Use a pie in Pylyx and Player One presents a similar initial position, only now with white to move. Now Player Two can choose to move first, and know he consequently plays white.
In the Marquis he can choose to move first, but he doesn't know yet which color he will play.
On another note: I used it in Swish/Squeeze, and I can assure you that these have been playtested extensively at Fanaat, because they were comfortably short and interesting games between to fill the waiting periods between larger multiplayer games. Nothing wrong with the balancing mechanism.
It has nothing "hidden" - whatever are you talking about? - and Player One will have to present a position that is not clearly advantageous to one player, because then Player Two will obviously choose that color despite moving second.
So it's tricky, but it is definitely an effective balancing mechanism. If you don't believe it, try it.
Finally, the 19th French Draughts player had a famous position as I described. Of this position he knew the entire truth (as described above: complete knowledge of a sub game), and his trickery was based on this knowledge.
That's different with positions we can devise in Pylyx.
What part of that do you not understand?
I made a simple game for people to enjoy, I hope you don't mind. I can assure you it is interesting enough despite the fact that it doesn't meet your criteria.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #680 on: Sep 9th, 2011, 1:17pm » |
|
on Sep 9th, 2011, 12:08pm, christianF wrote:
The pulsating loop is the draw cycle.
|
|
Not just any barrel of red herrings. A pulsating barrel of red herrings, lol I must have touched a nerve.
Christian, the months are turning into years and you're still not fooling anyone. Don't you think it's about time to roll up your threadbare magic carpet?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #681 on: Sep 9th, 2011, 2:25pm » |
|
on Sep 9th, 2011, 1:17pm, MarkSteere wrote:
Not just any barrel of red herrings. A pulsating barrel of red herrings, lol I must have touched a nerve.
Christian, the months are turning into years and you're still not fooling anyone. Don't you think it's about time to roll up your threadbare magic carpet? |
|
You asked about what I meant with the 'truth hidden in the game tree'.
I explained what I meant by it.
You answer with ridicule because you can only answer with ridicule. Repetition doesn't exactly make it more meaningful, if it ever is in the first place. Now go invent something brilliant and be vocal about it, or blow a saxophone, or take a ride. I'm not worth the trouble.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #682 on: Sep 9th, 2011, 5:02pm » |
|
on Sep 9th, 2011, 2:25pm, christianF wrote:
You asked about what I meant with the 'truth hidden in the game tree'. |
|
I asked you how hidden truth causes balance.
on Sep 9th, 2011, 2:25pm, christianF wrote:
You answer with ridicule because you can only answer with ridicule. |
|
You answer with red herrings because you can only answer with red herrings.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #683 on: Sep 13th, 2011, 1:39pm » |
|
Science is not a carefully worded statement, endlessly quoted and alluded to, month after month, year after year. Science is a dialog.
In science, you create a hypothesis and support it with evidence, theoretical or empirical. People challenge your hypothesis. You defend your hypothesis.
In your case, Christian, you make a claim, totally unsupported with evidence of any kind. When the inevitable challenges to your claim arise, you make no effort to intelligently defend your claim. Instead you attack. You dismiss all challenges as "ridicule" - a plot to discredit you. People who challenge your claims are themselves non-credible. That isn't science, Christian. That's paranoia.
When you respond to a challenge with "How do I get rid of you?", can you see how that would impact the credence of your claim?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #684 on: Sep 13th, 2011, 3:34pm » |
|
on Sep 13th, 2011, 1:39pm, MarkSteere wrote:| In your case, Christian, you make a claim, totally unsupported with evidence of any kind. |
|
One last time: what, according to you, is my claim?
Please be as concise and to the point as possible.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #685 on: Sep 13th, 2011, 5:11pm » |
|
on Sep 13th, 2011, 3:34pm, christianF wrote:
One last time: what, according to you, is my claim?
Please be as concise and to the point as possible.
|
|
on Sep 7th, 2011, 9:22am, christianF wrote:
In the games employing the method, "the truth" will not be known to either player. That's the basis of the method's effectiveness as a balancing mechanism. |
|
Was that concise enough?
Can you explain how not knowing perfect play, including who wins on any particular turn, forms "the basis of the method's effectiveness as a balancing mechanism"?
No more red herrings, Christian. No more pulsating loops. Present evidence that your "balancing mechanism" does anything of the sort.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #686 on: Sep 14th, 2011, 9:52am » |
|
I hear the hills are nice this time of year. Don't forget TP.
Christian: "Where are the hills? Please be as precise as possible."
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #687 on: Sep 14th, 2011, 12:45pm » |
|
on Sep 14th, 2011, 9:52am, MarkSteere wrote:I hear the hills are nice this time of year. Don't forget TP.
Christian: "Where are the hills? Please be as precise as possible." |
|
See, that's what I mean. Not a moment did I anticipate a straight answer. You've made yourself ridiculous by being the last to recognize the working of the balancing rule in Symple, and incapable of admitting to it.
I made a simple claim regarding Symple:
Quote:What makes Symple different is that you can't even argue one way or the other, because as long as no growth has taken place, both players have the option to trade move order advantage against limited growth.
about symple |
|
If you disagree, please argue one way or the other or leave it alone. Since you can't do the first, I suggest the latter.
I must smell intoxicatingly delicious from my a-ss because you follow it everywhere, and I can't even place a comment anywhere without you breaking in with distracting and uncalled for nonsense. Like a dog. Your crititicism isn't worth a dime and it's invariably destructive. You've bothered me with 'refuting' a claim you made up yourself, for almost a year now. Whatever makes it so important is a mystery to me but your cowardly mentality interferes deplorable with any constructive dialogue.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but endless repetition doesn't make them any more interesting. Consider me to unimportant to comment on.
Please.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 14th, 2011, 12:51pm by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #688 on: Sep 14th, 2011, 1:45pm » |
|
on Sep 14th, 2011, 12:45pm, christianF wrote:
Not a moment did I anticipate a straight answer. |
|
I gave you a straight answer, Christian. You asked me what your claim was, and I told you, three posts before this one. Scroll up. I asked you to explain your claim, which request you promptly ignored.
on Sep 14th, 2011, 12:45pm, christianF wrote:
I made a simple claim regarding Symple:
"What makes Symple different is that you can't even argue one way or the other, because as long as no growth has taken place, both players have the option to trade move order advantage against limited growth."
If you disagree, please argue one way or the other |
|
Yes, I disagree, Christian. And I did argue against your statement in rec.games.abstract. In response, you fled the group for a few weeks and pretended not to notice my argument on your return.
Bottom line: Either Player 1 or Player 2 will never have the option to "trade turn order advantage against limited growth" because he will never have the advantage to trade with. Your statement is utterly absurd and unbelievably ridiculous.
on Sep 14th, 2011, 12:45pm, christianF wrote:
I can't even place a comment anywhere without you breaking in with distracting and uncalled for nonsense. Like a dog. |
|
I know, Christian. I'm the villainous Ridiculer, foiling my opponents by incessantly ridiculing them until they become despondent.
on Sep 14th, 2011, 12:45pm, christianF wrote:
Consider me to unimportant to comment on. |
|
I consider you worthwhile, Christian. You're a notable designer and you're perpetrating fraud on our shared audience.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #689 on: Sep 14th, 2011, 2:20pm » |
|
on Sep 14th, 2011, 1:45pm, MarkSteere wrote:
Bottom line: Either Player 1 or Player 2 will never have the option to "trade turn order advantage against limited growth" because he will never have the advantage to trade with. |
|
If you had turn order advantage on any particular turn (and you had some way of knowing that) you sure wouldn't trade it for anything, such as "limited growth". Nothing in a game is worth more than turn order advantage. To assume otherwise would be phenomenally absurd.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print